Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)

I thank all Members for their contributions, which I have listened to carefully. I many not be able to respond to each of the issues that was raised. I hope they are not offended if I do not specifically refer to the issues to which they referred. I am conscious that a couple of the issue raised, for instance by Deputies Kelly and Coppinger, do not relate to the Bill so I may not be able to deal with them. If I have time, I will.

The general opposition to the Bill I have introduced centres on the content of section 3, which concerns public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. A number of Deputies have referred to the fact that this is going to be grossly unfair and will interfere with freedom of expression and the right to protest. I dispute that. It is not the case. I will contrast the language in the British terrorism Act with what is contained here. The wording is completely different.

The first and most important point I want to make in respect of section 3, which deals with public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, is that someone does not even get within the parameters of that offence unless what he or she is doing is being done with the intention of inciting a person to commit terrorist activity. When we talk about "glorification" and actions "that could reasonably be construed as inciting", they only arise if the activity of the person who is being investigated or prosecuted is with the intention of inciting another person to commit terrorist activity. The type of activity we are talking about is in circumstances where people are trying to encourage impressionable younger people to incite them to commit a terrorist act. The argument that has been used repeatedly is that these measures are going to block protest and stop people expressing their legitimately held political opinions. Even if they are political opinions that are supportive of terrorist activity, that is not going to be the case. You have to be inciting somebody to commit or with the intention of committing terrorist activity.

Deputies Paul Murphy and Coppinger may not have been here when I referred to the specific provisions of the legislation in the UK under which Kneecap is being prosecuted. Kneecap is being prosecuted under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I want to read out again the content of that provision because it is alarmingly wide. It is a provision that would not be enacted by this House. It states: "A person in a public place commits an offence if he ... wears, carries or displays an article in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation".

Somebody who is a supporter of Hamas and who displays that support could be prosecuted in the UK. That would not happen here. The only circumstance in which someone can be prosecuted here is if the activity he or she has been involved in is with the intention of seeking to incite somebody to engage in terrorist activity. There is a full difference between the two Bills. The rights to protest and to freedom of expression are fully contained within our Constitution and the European convention. Those rights are not going to be impinged by this.

Deputy Ward gave a couple of examples. He said he likes to be able to sing rebel songs. He will still be able to do it.

See this speech in context